\section{Practical Concerns Regarding the Open Governance Maturity Matrix}
\label{sec:concerns}

As we have previously indicated, there might be some unanswered questions regarding the practicalities of the Open Governance Maturity Matrix. In section \ref{sec:justification} we explained how the maturity matrix can be justified from a theoretical and methodological point of view and it has always been out of our scope to justify the maturity matrix from a practical point of view. Nevertheless, we want to discuss and elaborate on some urgent practical concerns in the following subsections.

\subsection{Maturity concerns while integrating to other open data pro\-jects}
\label{subsec:integration}
In section \ref{sec:modelframework} we argued that integration to other open data collaboration subsystems can happen when a certain maturity stage is reached. At that point the actors understand how to think holistically and long-term incentives for ``opening up'' are provided, which leads to a sustainable, ideal-seeking ecosystem. But we have not considered the impact of and necessity for a collective maturity of the adjoining project. The adjoining project/subsystem is probably at another maturity stage and maybe it is not even using any maturity framework to measure its collective maturity. Will it even make sense to integrate then?  \bigskip

\noindent We cannot provide any scientific evidences that says whether or not the two subsystems will successfully integrate or what shall be done to ensure a successful integration. We can only relate to our grounded findings and argue that the new system has to initiate a new maturing process. New actors have to be identified and their mindsets have to be aligned and understand the incentives to participate in an open data collaboration. The integration process might work faster than an initial maturing process because some of the actors already are mature and they can contribute to the understanding of open data and to the incentivisation towards initial participation.

One can argue that this potential integration process is made easier to monitor and handle if the Open Governance Maturity Matrix is used as a city-wide standard framework. Then the actors of the adjoining system have the same approach to maturity measuring and understanding. Their mindsets will simply be easier to align. And one can be sure that if the two projects find themselves in maturity stage 7 or 8 then the integrated system will easily mature because all the actors understand the necessity for proper incentivisation and holistic thinking.

\subsection{Uncertainties regarding time and funding}
\label{subsec:funding}

One thing that might prevent public and private actors to participate in an open data collaboration based on the Open Governance Maturity Matrix is the lack of any time specification. The actors do not know when a time investment starts to pay back and that can be a potential deal breaker for any collaboration. Our maturity matrix addresses the creation of system-wide incentives to keep on participating but it is not specifically dealing with the issue of creating a time horizon.

We have indicated how the willingness from the public sector to create a funding platform is crucial for the success of the project until it becomes a proper sustainable ecosystem. With great time uncertainties the decision-makers do not know for how long such funding should occur. Money has to come from somewhere for the project to get started.

Even though we are not addressing the specific issues of time and funding we ensure that short-term wins and value propositions are created and formulated across the whole ecosystem. These short-term wins include generation of fast economic profit. And so, it is equally important for both private and public actors to consider how to formulate and align incentives that counterbalance the time uncertainties. The plausible result is short-term direct or indirect economic profit.

Søren Møller Jensen is explaining how Copenhagen Connecting is in trouble because \textit{``the municipality is reluctant when it comes to allocating a right funding for it [even though] there are so many fine ideas within that project''} (Appendix \ref{appsec:sorenmollerjensen}, 01:02:28). We have tried to incorporate mechanisms that can handle the reluctance of the public sector to spend a lot of money on large open data initiatives, where incentive alignment and the creation of tangible wins are the most important factors. The idea is that built-in institutional design in the collaboration framework automatically takes care of mitigating risks and uncertainties by aligning mindsets and gradually constituting new norms, policies, and behaviour. But there might still be an initial reluctance towards initiating such initiatives in the first place and in that case the maturing process will probably never get started.

\subsection{Privacy concerns and legal barriers}

Privacy is a very important issue especially regarding Open Government and opening up PSI about citizens. Søren Kvist says that

\begin{quote}
\textit{``[i]t's very important to make a clear distinction between open data and more privacy-related data. If we look at energy data, what we can do is to aggregate some of this data on the building level, and anonymise this data so we will be able to make some of it available as open data, but it should never ever be possible to relate that data with an individual person or individual household.''}
\end{quote}

\noindent The Open Governance Maturity Matrix does not specifically address such privacy concerns. It might be considered as a meta-model for handling privacy issues because it establishes an equal forum for actors to discuss terms of privacy. In fact privacy issues coexist along with policy issues and Henrik Korsgaard explains how privacy and legislation are related:

\begin{quote}
\textit{``So one can't just talk about open data without visiting the policy side: who owns the data? what are the legal requirements? who can use it? what about privacy issues? Do you know the Danish digitization board that ensures privacy for instance? In Denmark the tax body can't combine information across systems, because that's illegal. But when you make the data open everybody can do it. How do you handle that?''} (Appendix \ref{appsec:henrik}, 29:48)
\end{quote}

\subsection{Concerns regarding proper institutional design}

Before we mentioned how institutional design has been build into the Open Governance Maturity Matrix and we have argued that that ensures the sustainability of the ecosystem by creating new collaboration and sharing norms and policies. We see an issue in building in such relatively unquantifiable and unmeasurable factors into a normative model. There might be subjective opinions to when policies and norms fit to a certain project and it is difficult to measure whether policies and norms are flexible enough to accommodate changing requirements and needs. \bigskip

\noindent In fact, policy development normally requires a lot of time and it is fully dependent on rigid political and legislative institutions. The idea behind the Open Governance Maturity Matrix is, however, that if it is followed incrementally, incentives to policy development will be fostered as a direct consequence of actors' increasing maturity and willingness to opening up and break down business silos. One can imagine that other institutional frameworks can be used as parts of the maturity model to reach a new maturity stage; for example specific policy development frameworks that can be use for going through maturity stages 5-7. In that case the Open Governance Maturity Matrix becomes a normative meta-framework/model.

\subsection{Involvement of the whole quadruple helix - what about the citizens and academia?}

In our explanation of the research background in section \ref{sec:researchbackgound} we outlined how long term success of smart city initiatives is dependent on mindset alignment among all ecosystem actors. Until now we have only described the role of the public and the private sectors in this ecosystem, but of course academia and citizens are important players as well -- the question is to which extent they are important in a maturing process. \bigskip

\noindent We have consciously looked away from the interests of the citizens even though all the interviewees emphasize the importance of legitimizing new innovations and investments through the citizens. This was mainly because Søren Møller Jensen emphasizes that citizens involvement \textit{``cannot replace the visions of private and public actors but can be seen as an important facilitator''} \citep{JENSEN}. We have not specifically incorporated this facilitation process in our maturity matrix as it is just a way to reach maturity stage 1 of formulating a clear vision. If the citizens are facilitating the formulation of this vision it might be easier to legitimize the investments politically. Furthermore, citizen engagement is hard to tackle because they are so hard to identify and as Adrian Ulisse says, \textit{``citizens are generally lazy [and] expect things to happen for [them]''} (Appendix \ref{appsec:adrian}, 26:50). Henrik Korsgaard and Lasse S. Vestergaard have similar points. And so, it seems like the citizens are a too complex matter to include in the maturing process. Therefore we have decided to not specifically address citizens in our maturity matrix. That does not prevent specific citizens or export groups to be considered as relevant for a certain project and they can of course be included in the maturing process if necessary. \bigskip

\noindent Academia can of course also be involved as a relevant actor in the project and participate in the maturing process. They can also just function as facilitators of knowledge and expertise and by that help increasing the collective mindset maturity. Academia is typically an actor within the cluster organisations.


